4 Comments

The front page of the June 1 Washington Post blared the headline "Fla., Mich. Delegates Each Get Half A Vote" and its accompanying subhead, "Compromise Prompts Anger From Clinton Campaign." I have watched for months as the press has mostly belittled Sen. Hillary Clinton while exalting Sen. Barack Obama, and I've noticed just how much popular press opinion has altered the mindset of the general public all the way up through the delegates themselves. I am fully aware of how the unbelievably heavy media bias towards Sen. Obama hugely helped in pigeonholing Sen. Clinton out of clinching the nomination she deserved.
The text of the article following the headline made sure to mention that Obama was the heavily favored candidate. Ever wonder how he got to be so popular? The media's bias toward him easily explains this rise to stardom. From the beginning, major media players pushed their opinions upon the public in favor of Sen. Obama, leaving Clinton supporters with dwindling outlets to promote their candidate as pro-Obama journalists and show hosts flooded the airwaves and news pages.
Funny enough, though, I was taught that the media were there to simply report the news -- just the facts, straight, clean-cut, and unbiased. I'm obviously aware that people such as Glenn Beck, Chris Mattews and EVERYONE at CNN and others are hired to shove their opinions down the public's throats on a nightly basis, but to the rest of the journalists out there, you're supposed to be reporting the news, not the bias. In recent years, the media has become so biased and opinionated it barely seems like true journalism anymore, especially when dealing with the television news shows and their influence in damaging and ultimately destroying Sen. Clinton's campaign.
Take a step back for a moment and really inspect the role the media has played in this nomination process, such as how they devote hours of coverage of supposed biased analysts' opinions. These opinions sway the public and even the delegates in a certain direction, and given that Sen. Clinton has been forced to end her campaign, the heavy influence of the media is undeniable.
To all you up-and-coming journalists out there, here's a proposition: Let's try to restore journalism to the respectable news outlet it used to be. Let's cut the biased and opinion-laden stories and get back to the facts. I need the facts to form my opinions on issues, not the biased thoughts of others

Sen. Clinton lost because she failed to take the smaller Primaries seriously. Not because the media painted her as some kind of monster. And if the media didn't affect your judgment about Clinton, what makes you think that it affected others? Clinton was forced to end her campaign because Obama had the necessary votes to win the nomination, not because the media forced her to.

And considering all the reverend issues that Obama dealt with, I would hardly consider him getting good biased media treatment.

Clinton ran a bad campaign and paid the price for it. Stop blaming others for her mistake in judgment.

Please! Mark Penn is an overpaid political hack whose poor guidance and campaign advice wound up costing Hillary the brass ring. Hillary should've taken Keisha Cole's advice and dumped Penn's @$$ long before the 5th of February.